I give up...all I know is that it works. Here's a great question; since all these new mods have been introduced, is anybody gonna take the time to update a readme file so we know wtf is going on /w the new switches?
edit; if the readme had some suggested parameters would really rock.
Tell ya what...if I get help from this forum, I'll do it. If everyone would test 1 or prefer 2 algo's and just send 'em to me /w what card or cards they tested. And if the devs will send me what the new switches are, what they do, etc., I'll take the current readme and compile a new readme /w a git posting. I could even add it to the .zip, I think. I know zip will allow adding a file so...what do ya say...anybody in for this? Like a concise version.
Good idea but I'm not sure the ccminer readme file is the best place for card specific data. The data will have to be maintained as new cards are introduced. If ccminer development slows the data wil become obsolete pretty fast. There is already some very obsolete information in the readme and help referring to coins that are long dead. What you're suggesting sounds like a small database considering the number of algos times the number of different cards. Even within one model and board manufacturer there are several variations of memory and clock speeds. Keeping it out of ccminer allows it to be updated independently of ccminer development. I suggest starting out by compiling the current data and posting here. If you or someone else feels ambitious they could put it in a database and put it up on a web site. Well, as long as the forum helps out it really wouldn't be all that hard to put it in a spreadsheet type of thing. But that's going very deep. I was more or less looking at updating the readme that's with currently. It doesn't have to be exact. And be put in a concise form, similar to what is there. Get rid of the old crap, add the new mods, switches, etc. and a short form of, not recommended or highest, but starting places for people. EX. What just happenned to me...give me a rough idea of where to set a card for Lyra2RE......edit; we could easlier lowball the numbers. Even newbies know this is just a starting place, not all emcompassing. (fat fingers..lol) Agreed. The readme could contain some generic recommendations such as how the amount of memory, overclocking or other factors affect the choice or parms and which algos benefit the most from which parms. Newbies should probably stick with the defaults, I believe some defaults are tweaked automatically for each algo. perhaps SP could chime in with his thoughts. I don't play with these parms myself so it may be a bit hypocritical of me to be so opinionated but I just thought what you were proposing was too much for a readme file. |
|
|
|
I give up...all I know is that it works. Here's a great question; since all these new mods have been introduced, is anybody gonna take the time to update a readme file so we know wtf is going on /w the new switches?
edit; if the readme had some suggested parameters would really rock.
Tell ya what...if I get help from this forum, I'll do it. If everyone would test 1 or prefer 2 algo's and just send 'em to me /w what card or cards they tested. And if the devs will send me what the new switches are, what they do, etc., I'll take the current readme and compile a new readme /w a git posting. I could even add it to the .zip, I think. I know zip will allow adding a file so...what do ya say...anybody in for this? Like a concise version.
Good idea but I'm not sure the ccminer readme file is the best place for card specific data. The data will have to be maintained as new cards are introduced. If ccminer development slows the data wil become obsolete pretty fast. There is already some very obsolete information in the readme and help referring to coins that are long dead. What you're suggesting sounds like a small database considering the number of algos times the number of different cards. Even within one model and board manufacturer there are several variations of memory and clock speeds. Keeping it out of ccminer allows it to be updated independently of ccminer development. I suggest starting out by compiling the current data and posting here. If you or someone else feels ambitious they could put it in a database and put it up on a web site. |
|
|
|
Yeah, 750tis take a lot of space, even if they're slightly better, which is why I never bought any. I'm currently using 970s. 980s are just a waste of money as they're too expensive for the little bit extra performance they offers (much like the 290 vs 290x back in the day).
I did a hash/price(cad) comparison and the 970 is definitely in the sweet spot Table below). The hash rate seems to scale linearly with the number of cuda cores, even between the sm 5.0 750ti and the sm 5.2 9xx series cards. I would have expected the 9xx cards to provide more hash at lower power and I have no clue why the 750ti is more power efficient. Maybe cuda 7 will show more improvement in sm 5.2. Consider the time it would take to burn enough power to equal the cost of a card with the 750ti and 50 watts as an example. The card goes for around CAD 180 and I'll assume CAD 0.10 /KWH for electricity. $180 would pay for 1800 KWH (1800000 WH). At 50 W the 750ti would have to run for 1800000/50 hours, or 98 years to spend the same on power as the cost of the card. Even including the power for a rig with just 1 750ti, about 400 W, would have to run for 12 years for the power burned to equal the card's cost. I've never really understood why there is so much attention paid to power consumption when the cost of the equipment is so much more significant. The only time the GPU cost isn't a factor is for gamers who already have the HW. Serious miners don't have another use for their HW. Just my thoughts on the subject. Here's the full comparison: 980 = 25.7 Kh/s/$ 970 = 39.7 960 = 36.0 750ti = 33.3 TitanX = 22.5 I won't be buying a TitanX anytime soon. I have no idea how I got the power figures above but I'll try again. At 50 W a 750ti will burn 50*24*365 watts hours in a year, or 438 KWH. The cost of the card will get you 4.1 years of power for it. A 400 W rig with 1 750ti would burn 350 KWH so $180 would only last about half a year. Even a 6 x 750ti rig has about 50% power overhead so tweaking the power efficiency of the miner would have little impact on overall power consumption. More hash is always better. |
|
|
|
Yeah, 750tis take a lot of space, even if they're slightly better, which is why I never bought any. I'm currently using 970s. 980s are just a waste of money as they're too expensive for the little bit extra performance they offers (much like the 290 vs 290x back in the day).
I did a hash/price(cad) comparison and the 970 is definitely in the sweet spot Table below). The hash rate seems to scale linearly with the number of cuda cores, even between the sm 5.0 750ti and the sm 5.2 9xx series cards. I would have expected the 9xx cards to provide more hash at lower power and I have no clue why the 750ti is more power efficient. Maybe cuda 7 will show more improvement in sm 5.2. Consider the time it would take to burn enough power to equal the cost of a card with the 750ti and 50 watts as an example. The card goes for around CAD 180 and I'll assume CAD 0.10 /KWH for electricity. $180 would pay for 1800 KWH (1800000 WH). At 50 W the 750ti would have to run for 1800000/50 hours, or 98 years to spend the same on power as the cost of the card. Even including the power for a rig with just 1 750ti, about 400 W, would have to run for 12 years for the power burned to equal the card's cost. I've never really understood why there is so much attention paid to power consumption when the cost of the equipment is so much more significant. The only time the GPU cost isn't a factor is for gamers who already have the HW. Serious miners don't have another use for their HW. Just my thoughts on the subject. Here's the full comparison: 980 = 25.7 Kh/s/$ 970 = 39.7 960 = 36.0 750ti = 33.3 TitanX = 22.5 I won't be buying a TitanX anytime soon. My power numbers are wrong. I worked it backward and came up with about 4 years. I'm tired, will figure it out tomorrow. |
|
|
|
Yeah, 750tis take a lot of space, even if they're slightly better, which is why I never bought any. I'm currently using 970s. 980s are just a waste of money as they're too expensive for the little bit extra performance they offers (much like the 290 vs 290x back in the day).
I did a hash/price(cad) comparison and the 970 is definitely in the sweet spot Table below). The hash rate seems to scale linearly with the number of cuda cores, even between the sm 5.0 750ti and the sm 5.2 9xx series cards. I would have expected the 9xx cards to provide more hash at lower power and I have no clue why the 750ti is more power efficient. Maybe cuda 7 will show more improvement in sm 5.2. Consider the time it would take to burn enough power to equal the cost of a card with the 750ti and 50 watts as an example. The card goes for around CAD 180 and I'll assume CAD 0.10 /KWH for electricity. $180 would pay for 1800 KWH (1800000 WH). At 50 W the 750ti would have to run for 1800000/50 hours, or 98 years to spend the same on power as the cost of the card. Even including the power for a rig with just 1 750ti, about 400 W, would have to run for 12 years for the power burned to equal the card's cost. I've never really understood why there is so much attention paid to power consumption when the cost of the equipment is so much more significant. The only time the GPU cost isn't a factor is for gamers who already have the HW. Serious miners don't have another use for their HW. Just my thoughts on the subject. Here's the full comparison: 980 = 25.7 Kh/s/$ 970 = 39.7 960 = 36.0 750ti = 33.3 TitanX = 22.5 I won't be buying a TitanX anytime soon. |
|
|
|
@crysx This seems to be probleem with quark on yaamp. I am the only one mining to this address but it shows 105 miners. Also total quark miners rose to 32K & hashrate dropped to 100 Mh/s, when miner started throwing bad shares with "Invalid job ID" and finally miner was not able to connect with the pool.  Yeah...I had about 30 miners. It was kicking me and reconnecting showing it as a new miner. I just quit it altogether. I think yaamp may be ready to crash again. Seems they can't keep it going over there. Me too. It seems the connections kept dropping but yaamp didn't reset them. Now yaamp is completely down and has been or over an hour. I expect better considering their fees. Nicehash is also having some issues, I haven't received toady's payout yet and their web site is also down at the moment. Yaamp just came back up but it's still having problems, lots of disconnects and rejects on quark. There aren't many multipools that provide an API. Trademybit is long gone, I tried Globalhash but they disappeared in less than a week. I have no idea Whether Mintsy has an API because the admin refuses to provide any info. His reply to my query was flippant and insulting in its evasiveness. Nicehash and yaamp seem to be it. |
|
|
|
|
Nist5 is back at yaamp. A little speed test with an
EVGA GTS 750ti SC (LP no aux pwr) stock,
ccminer 1.5.50 default parms
gave me 9400 Kh/s.
Same card gives 6050 Kh/s on quark.
|
|
|
|
Release 50 --- this is acting odd for me
[2015-05-11 17:35:14] Starting Stratum on stratum+tcp://stratum.nicehash.com:333
6
[2015-05-11 17:35:14] NVAPI GPU monitoring enabled.
[2015-05-11 17:35:14] 2 miner threads started, using 'x11' algorithm.
[2015-05-11 17:35:14] Binding thread 0 to cpu 0 (mask 1)
[2015-05-11 17:35:14] Binding thread 1 to cpu 1 (mask 2)
[2015-05-11 17:35:14] Stratum difficulty set to 0.04
[2015-05-11 17:35:15] stratum.nicehash.com:3336 x11 block 305840
[2015-05-11 17:35:19] GPU #1: GeForce GTX 980, 10481
[2015-05-11 17:35:19] accepted: 1/1 (100.00%), 10960 khash/s yay!!!
[2015-05-11 17:35:29] GPU #0: GeForce GTX 980, 10743
[2015-05-11 17:35:29] accepted: 2/2 (100.00%), 17886 khash/s yay!!!
[2015-05-11 17:35:33] Stratum set nonce 2000192c2b with extranonce2 size=3
[2015-05-11 17:35:34] GPU #1: GeForce GTX 980, 10399
[2015-05-11 17:35:34] accepted: 2/3 (66.67%), 18971 khash/s booooo
[2015-05-11 17:35:34] reject reason: Share above target.
[2015-05-11 17:35:39] GPU #1: GeForce GTX 980, 10006
[2015-05-11 17:35:39] accepted: 3/4 (75.00%), 19416 khash/s yay!!!
[2015-05-11 17:35:43] stratum.nicehash.com:3336 x11 block 305841
[2015-05-11 17:35:43] GPU #0: GeForce GTX 980, 10651
[2015-05-11 17:35:43] GPU #1: GeForce GTX 980, 9937
[2015-05-11 17:35:56] GPU #1: GeForce GTX 980, 9147
[2015-05-11 17:35:57] accepted: 4/5 (80.00%), 19660 khash/s yay!!!
[2015-05-11 17:35:59] GPU #1: GeForce GTX 980, 8849
[2015-05-11 17:36:00] accepted: 5/6 (83.33%), 19643 khash/s yay!!!
[2015-05-11 17:36:03] Stratum set nonce 00513399 with extranonce2 size=3
[2015-05-11 17:36:03] stratum.nicehash.com:3336 x11 block 305843
[2015-05-11 17:36:03] GPU #1: GeForce GTX 980, 9192
[2015-05-11 17:36:03] GPU #0: GeForce GTX 980, 10083
[2015-05-11 17:36:04] stratum.nicehash.com:3336 x11 block 28230
[2015-05-11 17:36:04] GPU #0: GeForce GTX 980, 9901
[2015-05-11 17:36:04] GPU #1: GeForce GTX 980, 8884
[2015-05-11 17:36:05] CTRL_C_EVENT received, exiting
Also when I do use CTRL-C it gives me a windows error (unhandled win32 exception occurred in ccminer)
release 45 is still stable for me
I believe the extranonce size message is new but normal. The ctrl-c crash is a problem that was introduced in a recent release. There is some discussion about it earlier in this thread, around the time the problem first appeared. It would be nice if it was fixed. ccminer does not support failover. A bat file can implement a crude failover mechanism but it won't revert when the primary pool comes back online. it will only switch when the backup disconnects. As such it will only guarantee that it will keep trying until it finds a pool that works and will stay on that pool until it fails. Such a bat file is useful when the pool supports profit swicthing among various algos. Real failover handling for ccminer requires a non-trivial script or application that will monitor the ccminer process and the pools to determine when a pool fails and recovers and take appropriate action. You might want to take a look at Minercontrol. I've never used it but I believe it can manage failover with ccminer. |
|
|
|
There's not a lot of information on the front page, or accessible to non-users.
I would like to know a lot more before I sign up. Some stats would help.
Do miners actually mine coins or are they paid directly by renters? What
are the payout options? I'm also curious about your business model since
you say you don't charge any fees. Another recent multipool offering
similar services disappeared is less than a week, I'd like to be sure you're
going to be around for a while.
Great Questions Mintsy pretty much offers all mining solutions. - 0% pools - Scrypt, Sha Cloud Mining Contracts (X11 coming soon) - Rig Rentals (Rent yours, or Rent someone else's) - Contract trading Mintsy is owned by the same people who bring Cryptsy, and DigitalBTC both have been in the crypto industry for over three years. What else would you like to know? Maybe you could answer the questions I already asked indead of repeating the same bullet points from your web page. On second thought never mind. |
|
|
|
@ DougB62...I'm still waiting for the fail to see if your file works. I may not be so smart...just an ass. My fingers were too quick to restart my miner. I do know tho that with your file I had to put my primary pool as the second in the command line. I'm gonna delete my comment below until I know if the kudos need to be applied.
Back in a few!
edit; tbear is right...dang it. I was really hoping dougb62 was correct. Thanks for the try; appreciate it!
No problem, and I'm busily searching for a working solution - may need something more than a simple bat file though  It really depends on what you what you are trying to acccomplish. Just running ccminer without the -r parameter will try to reconnect continuously. This is sufficient if all you want to do is recover from momentary disconnects. A bat file is more useful if you want to switch to a backup pool if the active pool disconnects. This is more useful if a pool goes down for a length of time. In that case you would specify -r 1 to allow ccminer to exit on disconnect instead of continuously trying to reconnect. Regarding the problem of finding ccminer.exe from the bat file, you need to specify the entire path to the executable, ie c:\this\is\the\path\to\ccminer.exe. If the bat file is in the same folder as ccminer.exe it might just find it without the path, but I could be wrong. |
|
|
|
does cuda 7 work well - compiling and stability and all? ...
I just tried one test compile of ccminer-1.5.48 and there were no issues. I don't have either centos7 or cuda7 running on bare metal yet so I couldn't test the compiled executable. With the delays in releasing cuda on fedora 21 and the short fedora life cycle it only leaves a small usable window to build a supported fedora based miner. |
|
|
|
|
I hope this question isn't off topic, I'm not aware of a cuda HW thread.
Does anyone have any experience with Gigabyte's half length 970? I'm concerned heat
would be an issue with everything crammed into half the space. If not it could be
suitable in a smaller case.
|
|
|
|
|
There's not a lot of information on the front page, or accessible to non-users.
I would like to know a lot more before I sign up. Some stats would help.
Do miners actually mine coins or are they paid directly by renters? What
are the payout options? I'm also curious about your business model since
you say you don't charge any fees. Another recent multipool offering
similar services disappeared is less than a week, I'd like to be sure you're
going to be around for a while.
|
|
|
|
another 4 machines to be rebuilt with f20x64 today and will have those on again and mining ...
You do realize that F20 is scheduled for EOL at the end of June? I'm planning to upgrade to Centos 7.1 and Cuda 7. I did a test compile on a Virtualbox VM without any issues as long as I use the Cuda run file installer so I can skip installing the drivers (the VM don't like Nvidia drivers). Won't have to upgrade the OS for several years. |
|
|
|
Ok....must be having a brain fart today. Setting up a .bat file for running nicehash. Solo mining runs fine for x11, but I'm having trouble with quark. Comes up telling me workio thread terminating. Would somebody else that mines on nicehash mind showing me a sample of a Windows .bat.
I assume your URL and algo are correct? I have seen a very similar problem and it only happened on nice/westhash and only when running from a bat file. First, try the same ccminer command directly from the command line. Also try another pool (like yaamp) from the bat file. If you only have problems with nicehash and only from the bat file it may be the same problem I had. In my case the bat file was working then it stopped working, failing to connect to the startum server. A reboot fixed it (good old Windows). I have no idea what caused it. Gice it a try. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
